Mahendra Pratap Pandey v. Sanjay Kumar Khatri and others) under Sections

1. Heard Sri Shreeprakash Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.K.Ojha, learned AGA-I for the State.

2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 24.07.2024 as well as the entire proceeding of Criminal Misc. Case No. 1520 of 2021 (Mahendra Pratap Pandey vs. Sanjay Kumar Khatri and others) under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427, 120B IPC, P.S. Nandganj, District Ghazipur, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the bhoomidhar of plot no. 80 situated at village-Rahimpur alias Muslimpur, P.S. Nandganj, District Ghazipur. The opposite party no.5 was trying to occupy the said land by encroaching upon the land of the applicant herein and he tried to cut the Sheesham trees, then a Civil Suit No. 669 of 2008 was lodged by the applicant against the opposite party no.5, wherein vide order dated 26.10.2015, both the parties were directed to maintain status quo with regard to the said plot. On 04.10.2016, the opposite party nos.2, 3 and 4 in collusion with the opposite party no.5 reached there and started construction of road on Arazi No. 80 of the applicant despite there being an order of status quo. The said status quo order was shown to them but they did not stop the work. When the applicant resisted the said illegal occupation by the opposite parties, he was challaned under Section 107, 116, 115(1) Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved by the same, he filed a Misc. Case No. 61 of 2016 dated 03.12.2016 with regard to the violation of the judicial order wherein the opposite parties had filed their reply. The allegation is that the opposite parties have laid a chak road from the plot of the applicant and five sheesham trees were cut by them. Since he could not get any order from the civil court with regard to violation of the status quo order, he filed the instant complaint case in the year 2021 for an incident of 2016. After filing the complaint case, the statement of complainant was recorded on 03.03.2021 and that of witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 on 13.08.2021 and 03.09.2021 respectively under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. Thereafter the matter was continuously listed for hearing on summoning. However the matter could not be heard for the obvious reason on summoning. On 24.07.2024, the arguments were advanced on summoning by the counsel for the applicant and thereupon looking at the entirety of the matter, the learned Judicial Magistrate directed an enquiry report to be submitted by the S.H.O., P.S. Nandganj with regard to the incident in question. The said order dated 24.07.2024 has been challenged by the applicant in the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Vide order dated 25.07.2025, this Court has directed the State Authority to explain as to why the authorities had violated the status quo order with regard to the plot in question while constructing the road on 04.10.2016. Pursuant to the same, a compliance affidavit has been filed by the S.P. Ghazipur stating as under: "3. That in compliance of the aforesaid stated order of this Hon'ble Court, it is submitted that a report was received from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Saidpur and the Police Station In-charge Nandganj, District Ghazipur. According to the report, in the revenue records, Gta No. 80, area 0.204 hectare is registered as transferable landholder in the name of the applicant Mahendra Pratap Pandey,. Adjacent to this, Gata No. 90, area 0.0850 hectare chak road is registered in the Khatauni on the south side. The applicant Shri Mahendra Pandey has filed a case no. 669/2008 for injunction against Harilal of his own village in the Judicial Civil Judge (Judiciary) Saidpur. In which, during the hearing of both the parties, an order was passed on 16.10.2015 to maintain the status quo for both the parties.

4.That it is to be clarified that the aforesaid stated order was given between two private persons regarding Gata No. 80, the government was not a party in the said case. At that time, the said village was selected under Lohia village. Under the development works, Chakrod was to be constructed on Gata No. 90. For which Chakrod was being constructed on 04.10.2016 by the then Revenue Department after demarcating Gata No. 90. Police officers and employees were present on the spot along with the revenue employees to maintain peace. Where in the construction of the said work, 1. Mahendra Pratap Pandey son of late Satyanarayan Pandey 2. Rajendra Prasad Prajapati son of late Prayag Prajapati residents of village Muslimpur, then police station Nandganj, present police station Rampur Manjha district Ghazipur were creating hindrance. They were explained a lot on the spot but started getting agitated. In view of the strong possibility of disturbance of peace, the above persons were challaned in the on 04.10.2016 under Sections 151/107/116 Cr.P.C.

5. That in relation to the above, it is to be clarified that there was no stay of any court on Gata No. 90 Chakrod. The Gram Sabha demarcated the land and got the construction done. No harm was caused to the applicant in this nor was the order of the learned Civil Court violated. Revenue and police personnel got the construction done on public land Chakrod Gata No. 90 and not Gata No. 80. The said Chakrod was currently demarcated by the revenue team with three points in the field book. In which the previously constructed chakroad was found at its place according to the map, which confirms the previous action. The applicant is not affected by the Chakrod in any way. The applicant always had the option of getting his Chak Gata No. 80 demarcated under Section 24 of the Revenue Code, but the applicant did not do this and instead complained and made baseless allegations. Photocopy of the police report, GD No. 030 dated 04.10.2016, letter of the SDM, Saidpur dated 23.07.2025, report dated 23.07.2025, relevant extract of Khatauni, relevant extract of field book and questionnaire are collectively being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. 1 to this affidavit."

4. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that after the statements under Section 202(2) Cr.P.C. were recorded, it is not open for the Magistrate to enquire into the matter through the police authorities or any other officer. The said enquiry can be done prior to the recording of the statement under Section 202 (2) Cr.P.C. and not subsequent thereto. It is further submitted that at the time of summoning, the learned Magistrate is required to see only the prima facie case and probing an enquiry into the merits of the case is not necessary at the time of summoning of the accused persons.

5. Per contra, learned AGA submits that since the road was constructed on a public road at plot no. 90 which was already recorded on the revenue record as chak road and prior to the construction of the road, the demarcation was done from three points and no part of the plot no. 80 was occupied by the authorities while constructing the road on plot no. 90. Thus there was no violation of any status quo order. It is further submitted that if any status quo order was there that was interse the opposite party no.5 and the applicant herein and that was not binding on the State Authorities as the State Authorities were not party to the said suit. Learned AGA further submits that for an incident dated 04.10.2016, the applicant has initially applied for violation of the status quo order before the civil court where he has failed to obtain any order against the opposite parties. Therefore, after five years of the same, the instant complaint case has been filed alleging the offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427, 120-B IPC. Since none of the aforesaid offences are punishable for more than two years, therefore, under Section 468 Cr.P.C., the complaint itself is barred and the Magistrate cannot take cognizance on such complaint, which was filed after five years of such incident.

6. In reply, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the question of limitation would not arise as the Magistrate has already taken cognizance on the matter in the year 2021 itself by recording the statements of witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and issue of limitation was not raised at that time. Thus, since the cognizance has already been taken in the matter, the issue of limitation could not arise in the said case.

7. Having heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the record of the case. The brief facts of the case have already been noted herein above. In compliance, it has been categorically stated that no part of the land has been occupied or interfered with by the State Authorities by constructing the chak road.

8. In view of the categorical averments made by the State Authorities, since no part of the plot no. 80 owned by the applicant herein has been occupied while constructing the road on 04.10.2016, no offence whatsoever is made out against the opposite party no.2. In view of Section 468 Cr.P.C., the complaint itself is barred by time. The Magistrate cannot take cognizance of the offences after limitation provided under Section 468 Cr.P.C. The instant complaint has been admittedly filed after expiry of the limitation as provided under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Section 202 Cr.P.C. reads as under : "202. Postponement of issue of process- (1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under section 192 may, if he thinks fit, [and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction] [Inserted by Act 25 of 2005, Section 19 (w.e.f. 23-6-2006).]postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding :Provided that no such direction for investigation shall be made, - (a) where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session; or (b) where the complaint has not been made by a Court, unless the complainant and the witnesses present (if any) have been examined on oath under section 200. (2)In an inquiry under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of witnesses on oath :Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath. (3) If an investigation under sub-section (1) is made by a person not being a police officer, he shall have for that investigation all the powers conferred by this Court on an officer-in-charge of a police station except the power to arrest without warrant."

9. Before taking cognizance in the matter and summoning the accused persons, it is the duty of the Magistrate to satisfy himself with regard to a prima facie case regarding the commission of an offence to reach such conclusion, the Magistrate has three options: (i) To conduct an enquiry into the case himself (ii) To direct an investigation to be made by the police officer (iii) To direct an investigation to be done by such other persons as he deems fit.

10. The purpose of such enquiry is to decide whether or not there is a sufficient ground of proceeding in the case. When he decides to conduct an enquiry himself, he may record the statment of the witnesses under Section 202(2) Cr.P.C., however there is no bar that even after recording the statement under Section 202(2) Cr.P.C., if he is not satisfied he may still direct the enquiry to be made by the police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit for the purpose of satisfying himself, whether a prima facie case is made out.

11. In view thereof, this Court does not find any illegality in the order dated 24.07.2024 passed by the learned Magistrate directing an enquiry. However, since the instant complaint is itself barred by limitation admittedly, in view thereof, the proceedings of the instant case are barred and the Magistrate is barred to take cognizance in the instant case. Therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by directing the State Authorities to comply with the said order dated 24.07.2024 at this stage and direct the Magistrate to pass any further order. As admittedly the complaint is barred, therefore, the entire proceeding of Criminal Misc. Case No. 1520 of 2021 (Mahendra Pratap Pandey vs. Sanjay Kumar Khatri and others) under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427, 120B IPC, P.S. Nandganj, District Ghazipur, is hereby quashed.

12. The instant application is, accordingly, disposed of. Order Date :- 19.8.2025 Ashish Pd. (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) ASHISH PRASAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Shreeprakash Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.K.Ojha, learned AGA-I for the State.

2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 24.07.2024 as well as the entire proceeding of Criminal Misc. Case No. 1520 of 2021 (Mahendra Pratap Pandey vs. Sanjay Kumar Khatri and others) under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427, 120B IPC, P.S. Nandganj, District Ghazipur, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the bhoomidhar of plot no. 80 situated at village-Rahimpur alias Muslimpur, P.S. Nandganj, District Ghazipur. The opposite party no.5 was trying to occupy the said land by encroaching upon the land of the applicant herein and he tried to cut the Sheesham trees, then a Civil Suit No. 669 of 2008 was lodged by the applicant against the opposite party no.5, wherein vide order dated 26.10.2015, both the parties were directed to maintain status quo with regard to the said plot. On 04.10.2016, the opposite party nos.2, 3 and 4 in collusion with the opposite party no.5 reached there and started construction of road on Arazi No. 80 of the applicant despite there being an order of status quo. The said status quo order was shown to them but they did not stop the work. When the applicant resisted the said illegal occupation by the opposite parties, he was challaned under Section 107, 116, 115(1) Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved by the same, he filed a Misc. Case No. 61 of 2016 dated 03.12.2016 with regard to the violation of the judicial order wherein the opposite parties had filed their reply. The allegation is that the opposite parties have laid a chak road from the plot of the applicant and five sheesham trees were cut by them. Since he could not get any order from the civil court with regard to violation of the status quo order, he filed the instant complaint case in the year 2021 for an incident of 2016. After filing the complaint case, the statement of complainant was recorded on 03.03.2021 and that of witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 on 13.08.2021 and 03.09.2021 respectively under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. Thereafter the matter was continuously listed for hearing on summoning. However the matter could not be heard for the obvious reason on summoning. On 24.07.2024, the arguments were advanced on summoning by the counsel for the applicant and thereupon looking at the entirety of the matter, the learned Judicial Magistrate directed an enquiry report to be submitted by the S.H.O., P.S. Nandganj with regard to the incident in question. The said order dated 24.07.2024 has been challenged by the applicant in the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Vide order dated 25.07.2025, this Court has directed the State Authority to explain as to why the authorities had violated the status quo order with regard to the plot in question while constructing the road on 04.10.2016. Pursuant to the same, a compliance affidavit has been filed by the S.P. Ghazipur stating as under: "3. That in compliance of the aforesaid stated order of this Hon'ble Court, it is submitted that a report was received from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Saidpur and the Police Station In-charge Nandganj, District Ghazipur. According to the report, in the revenue records, Gta No. 80, area 0.204 hectare is registered as transferable landholder in the name of the applicant Mahendra Pratap Pandey,. Adjacent to this, Gata No. 90, area 0.0850 hectare chak road is registered in the Khatauni on the south side. The applicant Shri Mahendra Pandey has filed a case no. 669/2008 for injunction against Harilal of his own village in the Judicial Civil Judge (Judiciary) Saidpur. In which, during the hearing of both the parties, an order was passed on 16.10.2015 to maintain the status quo for both the parties.

4.That it is to be clarified that the aforesaid stated order was given between two private persons regarding Gata No. 80, the government was not a party in the said case. At that time, the said village was selected under Lohia village. Under the development works, Chakrod was to be constructed on Gata No. 90. For which Chakrod was being constructed on 04.10.2016 by the then Revenue Department after demarcating Gata No. 90. Police officers and employees were present on the spot along with the revenue employees to maintain peace. Where in the construction of the said work, 1. Mahendra Pratap Pandey son of late Satyanarayan Pandey 2. Rajendra Prasad Prajapati son of late Prayag Prajapati residents of village Muslimpur, then police station Nandganj, present police station Rampur Manjha district Ghazipur were creating hindrance. They were explained a lot on the spot but started getting agitated. In view of the strong possibility of disturbance of peace, the above persons were challaned in the on 04.10.2016 under Sections 151/107/116 Cr.P.C.

5. That in relation to the above, it is to be clarified that there was no stay of any court on Gata No. 90 Chakrod. The Gram Sabha demarcated the land and got the construction done. No harm was caused to the applicant in this nor was the order of the learned Civil Court violated. Revenue and police personnel got the construction done on public land Chakrod Gata No. 90 and not Gata No. 80. The said Chakrod was currently demarcated by the revenue team with three points in the field book. In which the previously constructed chakroad was found at its place according to the map, which confirms the previous action. The applicant is not affected by the Chakrod in any way. The applicant always had the option of getting his Chak Gata No. 80 demarcated under Section 24 of the Revenue Code, but the applicant did not do this and instead complained and made baseless allegations. Photocopy of the police report, GD No. 030 dated 04.10.2016, letter of the SDM, Saidpur dated 23.07.2025, report dated 23.07.2025, relevant extract of Khatauni, relevant extract of field book and questionnaire are collectively being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. 1 to this affidavit."

4. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that after the statements under Section 202(2) Cr.P.C. were recorded, it is not open for the Magistrate to enquire into the matter through the police authorities or any other officer. The said enquiry can be done prior to the recording of the statement under Section 202 (2) Cr.P.C. and not subsequent thereto. It is further submitted that at the time of summoning, the learned Magistrate is required to see only the prima facie case and probing an enquiry into the merits of the case is not necessary at the time of summoning of the accused persons.

5. Per contra, learned AGA submits that since the road was constructed on a public road at plot no. 90 which was already recorded on the revenue record as chak road and prior to the construction of the road, the demarcation was done from three points and no part of the plot no. 80 was occupied by the authorities while constructing the road on plot no. 90. Thus there was no violation of any status quo order. It is further submitted that if any status quo order was there that was interse the opposite party no.5 and the applicant herein and that was not binding on the State Authorities as the State Authorities were not party to the said suit. Learned AGA further submits that for an incident dated 04.10.2016, the applicant has initially applied for violation of the status quo order before the civil court where he has failed to obtain any order against the opposite parties. Therefore, after five years of the same, the instant complaint case has been filed alleging the offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427, 120-B IPC. Since none of the aforesaid offences are punishable for more than two years, therefore, under Section 468 Cr.P.C., the complaint itself is barred and the Magistrate cannot take cognizance on such complaint, which was filed after five years of such incident.

6. In reply, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the question of limitation would not arise as the Magistrate has already taken cognizance on the matter in the year 2021 itself by recording the statements of witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and issue of limitation was not raised at that time. Thus, since the cognizance has already been taken in the matter, the issue of limitation could not arise in the said case.

7. Having heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the record of the case. The brief facts of the case have already been noted herein above. In compliance, it has been categorically stated that no part of the land has been occupied or interfered with by the State Authorities by constructing the chak road.

8. In view of the categorical averments made by the State Authorities, since no part of the plot no. 80 owned by the applicant herein has been occupied while constructing the road on 04.10.2016, no offence whatsoever is made out against the opposite party no.2. In view of Section 468 Cr.P.C., the complaint itself is barred by time. The Magistrate cannot take cognizance of the offences after limitation provided under Section 468 Cr.P.C. The instant complaint has been admittedly filed after expiry of the limitation as provided under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Section 202 Cr.P.C. reads as under : "202. Postponement of issue of process- (1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under section 192 may, if he thinks fit, [and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction] [Inserted by Act 25 of 2005, Section 19 (w.e.f. 23-6-2006).]postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding :Provided that no such direction for investigation shall be made, - (a) where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session; or (b) where the complaint has not been made by a Court, unless the complainant and the witnesses present (if any) have been examined on oath under section 200. (2)In an inquiry under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of witnesses on oath :Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath. (3) If an investigation under sub-section (1) is made by a person not being a police officer, he shall have for that investigation all the powers conferred by this Court on an officer-in-charge of a police station except the power to arrest without warrant."

9. Before taking cognizance in the matter and summoning the accused persons, it is the duty of the Magistrate to satisfy himself with regard to a prima facie case regarding the commission of an offence to reach such conclusion, the Magistrate has three options: (i) To conduct an enquiry into the case himself (ii) To direct an investigation to be made by the police officer (iii) To direct an investigation to be done by such other persons as he deems fit.

10. The purpose of such enquiry is to decide whether or not there is a sufficient ground of proceeding in the case. When he decides to conduct an enquiry himself, he may record the statment of the witnesses under Section 202(2) Cr.P.C., however there is no bar that even after recording the statement under Section 202(2) Cr.P.C., if he is not satisfied he may still direct the enquiry to be made by the police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit for the purpose of satisfying himself, whether a prima facie case is made out.

11. In view thereof, this Court does not find any illegality in the order dated 24.07.2024 passed by the learned Magistrate directing an enquiry. However, since the instant complaint is itself barred by limitation admittedly, in view thereof, the proceedings of the instant case are barred and the Magistrate is barred to take cognizance in the instant case. Therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by directing the State Authorities to comply with the said order dated 24.07.2024 at this stage and direct the Magistrate to pass any further order. As admittedly the complaint is barred, therefore, the entire proceeding of Criminal Misc. Case No. 1520 of 2021 (Mahendra Pratap Pandey vs. Sanjay Kumar Khatri and others) under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427, 120B IPC, P.S. Nandganj, District Ghazipur, is hereby quashed.

12. The instant application is, accordingly, disposed of. Order Date :- 19.8.2025 Ashish Pd. (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) ASHISH PRASAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad